A USD pegged asset on any other chain is NOT BitUSD and it should not be marketed as BitUSD.  BitUSD only exists on the BitSharesX (soon to be Bitshares) chain.  Please read through the thread I linked to in my first comment.

I agree this is an issue.  A built in transfer mechanism with a one way peg is a solution to help expand the userbase of BitAssets on the Bitshares chain.

Quote from: wasthatawolf on October 24, 2014, 01:33:13 am

A one way peg would only strengthen the ecosystem of all DACs built on the BitShares code base. 

Instead of using the monicker "Powered by BitShares" it could instead be "Built on BitShares" and "Powered by BitUSD"

You people realize that you're choosing an arbitrary currency over all others?

Hasn't the idea all along been to onboard new users by introducing them to BitUSD first?  It's hardly arbitrary.

I remember listening to an interview with Brian Page about this exactly.  Also, BitShares forks could just as easily add a one way peg for other BitAssets depending on user demand.

The point is to strengthen the demand for BitAssets that exist on the BitShares chain.

Quote from: mf-tzo on October 23, 2014, 10:13:58 pm

ok now I am not sure if we agree or not...

Since everyone can call their coin bitcoin but the merchants will only accept the real bitcoin for obvious reasons then why this is different for bitusd? Everyone should be able to see and understand what they receive. Merchants should know if they accept bitsharesusd or musicusd or bobusd or bitstampusd or bankofAmericausd. So that's why I think both music and BTS should be called bitusd.

No they can't both call it BitUSD imo. MusicUSD will be backed by their shares.
BitUSD will be backed by BTS shares.

Everyone that buys MusicUSD makes Music shareholders money and increases their CAP.
Everyone that buys BitUSD makes BTS shareholders more money & increases our CAP.

So they will have different yield, collateral, liquidity etc.

If Music merges into BTS and our shares are backing the BitAssets then it's fine they're BitUSD.

Thanks for this perspective.

BitUSD as the brand name of the USD pegged asset collateralized by Bitshares is a great definition. 

If it's a USD pegged asset collateralized by ANY OTHER fork of Bitshares, it is not BitUSD.

The idea of having USD pegged assets on Bitshares forks still makes sense to some degree.  ForkUSD would essentially be a bank account for the DAC and a low volatility unit of account for users of that DAC.  ForkUSD could also be supported by a one way peg allowing a 1:1 trade of BitUSD for ForkUSD but not the other way around.  A one way peg in this direction would also insure liquidity for BitUSD as well as increase liquidity with every new successful independent fork of Bitshares.  The one-way peg would just be another part of the social contract when using the Bitshares Toolkit.

Quote from: xeroc on October 23, 2014, 06:56:42 pm

bitstampUSD != mtgoxUSD ?!

See what I did?

Not sure how to fix this ..
not even sure if a fix is required

Apples to oranges.

BitsharesX is marketed as a decentralized bank.

Generally, I use my bank account as a place to store money prior to spending it.  With this analogy, I would fully expect to be able to transfer BitUSD from BitsharesX to Peertracks at a 1:1 ratio, much like if I were to deposit money into an exchange (like Bitstamp or Mt. Gox). 

PeerTracks is going to be accepting cash through credit card purchases they will have an onramp straight from fiat. Their bitusd will be backed by notes on one side and fiat on the otherside. Since they are not providing yield/interest on their bitusd, the transaction fees that don't go to delegates can go to a reserve. If we are the big superDAC, then they are now lean focus DAC. It will be interesting to see how each performs.

If we grow as fast or faster than them then maybe we can merge or just buy them out before someone else does.

Peertracks BitUSD != Bitshares BitUSD

Ask anyone not following these forums closely if they are aware of this distinction.  My bet is a majority are not.

This is the core issue.

My point was that inclusion of the Music DAC is being considered. Bytemaster and Cob have both said this in the last couple of days. I felt it was important to correct your statement that "Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC". Technically, this is true, since PeerTracks is the external retail site, but anyone reading this forum needs to know that the decision on the Music DAC (back end) has not been made, as far as I am aware. So it would be inaccurate to say that it is not being included.

This is just semantics.  Regardless of what might happen in the future, we need to consider the here and now.  Current plans indicate (per Xeroc's most recent post) that Peertracks will plug into BitShares Music and not the BitShares SuperDAC.

The Peertracks guys discuss BitUSD in interviews NOW (at least in the most recent Bitcoins and Gravy interview which is what led me to start this thread).

The Peertracks website discusses BitUSD NOW.

There needs to be a clear distinction NOW between BitUSD that is used within the BitShares Music DAC and BitUSD used within the BitShares SuperDAC.  It should be abundantly clear to all parties involved that BitUSD is not fungible between chains. 

I'm extremely surprised that more people don't see a huge issue with how BitUSD is currently being marketed as a single asset.

From the Peertracks FAQ...

What is a BitUSD?

This is what you will be spending/earning on PeerTracks. User’s will convert their funds (USD, Euro, CAD, Peso, etc) into a form that is readable by the Bitshares Music Blockchain: BitUSD. Blockchains have very low transaction fees compared to banking institutions, credit card companies or even paypal. This allows for micro transactions which in turn allows the free flow of funds from fan to artist without anyone in the middle taking a huge cut.

No mention at all that this is not compatible with BitUSD on BitsharesX.